Self-Efficacy and Workplace Well-Being: Understanding the Role of Resilience in Manufacturing Organizations

Abstract

Engaging in behavior that enhances the socio-psychological relations at the workplace provides a competitive advantage to organizations. Drawing from the emerging positive organizational behavior studies, the present research was designed to analyze the relationship between self-efficacy and resilience to promote workplace well-being. The main aim of the study was to examine the moderating role of resilience between self-efficacy and workplace well-being. About 527 full-time executives from the Indian public and private manufacturing industries participated in the study. Common method variance of the measure was carried out through one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) using confirmatory factor analysis to understand the bias in responding to our questionnaire. Finally, we carried out a hierarchical regression analysis to test the interacting effect of resilience between self-efficacy and workplace well-being. The result of the study indicates a positive relationship between self-efficacy and workplace well-being. The moderation effect of resilience was also confirmed in the structural equation modeling output through LISREL. Results revealed that executives having higher self-efficacy and resilience will demonstrate a positive attitude toward workplace well-being. Self-efficacy and resilience are malleable in nature and get enriched through observation and learning. This study stands as one of the first few empirical works in positive organizational behavior studies that have been carried out on executives of manufacturing organizations in India. Hence, the findings of the study cannot be generalized beyond manufacturing organizations. The data are collected through random sampling method, hence due care need to be taken while generalizing the result in a larger population, so future research may be carried out on a large sample in diverse organizations and locations to have an appropriate comparison by addressing the effectiveness of resilience on other behavior constructs.

Keywords

Self-efficacy resilience workplace well-being manufacturing organizations India

Introduction

Earlier studies have documented that people having high self-efficacy choose to perform more challenging and difficult tasks than the people with low level of self-efficacy, as these people are more encountered with depression (Kasikci & Alberto, 2007), anxiety (Panatik et al., 2011; Sanna, 1977) and helplessness (Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Sherer et al., 1982). The perceived self-efficacy often guides individuals’ actions and helps in their future planning.

Self-efficacy is an indicator of one’s self-evaluation about his/her own strength or competence for executing the action to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997). This kind of self-belief influences the individual’s choice of activities, efforts, and persistence. Bandura (1989) further states that individuals with low self-efficacy tend to avoid the specific task for accomplishing it compared to their counterparts those who believe they are capable will be more likely to realize the given task. Taking the above studies into consideration, it is felt to explore the role of the above constructs in Indian manufacturing settings which is yet to be explored. Mostly, this sector contributes and enhances the growth of the economy in developing countries. In the Indian context, presently, the Government of India has taken “Make in India” initiatives to start and manufacturing of goods to have competitive prices and economical growth. This led to the building of new infrastructures and huge investment in manufacturing sectors. It enables India to emerge as a potential manufacturing sector hub and drawing attention globally. Hence, the present study has been undertaken in manufacturing industries as it is convenient to study by visiting their workplace to study their psychology and generalize our research due to proximity, geographical locations, culture, and labor orientation.

Well-being is an outcome of the feeling of happiness (Ereaut & Whiting, 2008), satisfaction with varied life experiences that one individual experiences professional and personal life (Harter et al., 2002; Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009). Many times satisfaction may be in the form of a sense of achievement, utility, belongingness, and no distress, sections, or worry, etc. (Sastre & Ferriere, 2000; Sears et al., 2013; Shek, 1997; VanWel et al., 2000). Psychological well-being is a concept that depicts the feeling of an individual that one pass through in day-to-day life activities and such feelings may range from negative mental state or psychological strains such as anxiety, expression, frustration, emotional exhaustion, unhappiness, dissatisfaction to a positive mental health of deriving joy and satisfaction (Jahoda, 1958; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Bornstein and colleagues (2003) defined well-being as “the state of successful performance throughout one’s life course integrating psychical, cognitive, and socio-emotional functions that result in productive activities deemed significant by one’s cultural community, fulfilling social relationships, and the ability to transcend moderate psychosocial and environmental problems”.

Self-efficacy primarily decides the way an individual feels, thinks, act and is proved to be an optimistic feeling providing the ability to cope with a variety of stressors. Coping in the other hand defines the way people manage life conditions that are stressful (Cranford, 2004; Lazarus, 1999) and refers to various cognitive or behavioral efforts used to manage, reduce, or control stress (Infurna & Luthar, 2016; Lowe & Bennett, 2003; Tanaka, 1999). Research on self-efficacy shows scientific evidence that it acts as an antecedent of resilience and has positive effects on well-being. But the effect is often observed indirectly through resilience (Djourova et al., 2019). This finding contradicts previous studies directly linking self-efficacy to well-being (Liu et al., 2010). At the same time, it points out the importance of resilience as a psychological mechanism for the promotion of workplace well-being (Richardson & Chew-Graham, 2016).

To strengthen our argument, we assume that more self-efficacy, the individual will have more coping strategies to stress and demonstrate a positive attitude toward workplace well-being. Therefore, we propose to examine that resilience with a higher level of self-efficacy leads to well-being at work. It is also analyzed during our studies that the role of resilience and self-efficacy is explored very scantly in an Indian manufacturing context. Therefore, the goal of the present study is to examine the self-efficacy and resilience as the predictors of well-being at work in the context of Indian manufacturing industries. This study also gives new dimensions and theoretical insights as it holds significance for practitioners, scholars, and academia.

Review of Literature and Development of Hypothesis

Self-Efficacy and Workplace Well-Being

Self-efficacy affects well-being through various processes through cognitive, motivational, and effective means which leads to changes in attitudes and behaviors that can improve both mental and physical well-being (Bandura, 1995). Research studies also support the fact that there exists a relationship between self-efficacy and health behavior, as higher perceived self-efficacy results in improved physical and mental health (Bandura, 1997; Loeb et al., 2011; Natovová & Chýlová, 2014; Parker, 1998). In a more recent finding, Lipke (2009) asserted that self-efficacy and an individual’s intentions are correlated as people with higher self-efficacy performs better in an interpersonal and organizational setup and flourishes a healthy lifestyle. Self-efficacy influences an individual’s perceptions of stress by decreasing them, which in turn minimizes the health consequences by psychological distress (Godin et al., 2005).

The study of well-being has often been carried out in the context of “quality of life” (Diener, & Rober, 2008), which is generally described in terms of well-being (Diener, 1984), subjective assessment of one’s health condition, and life satisfaction (Headey & Wearing, 1992), etc. Subjective well-being is generally classified as affective, emotional aspects (positive and negative affects) and cognitive, judgmental aspects and they are used to derive life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985; Tong & Song, 2004). Diener and Diener (1996) reported that people choose to attain positive psychological states and try to avoid or reduce unpleasant states. Hence, it is assumed that they are more likely to use positive coping strategies to remain happy. Abdalla (1995) stated that a person with higher self-efficacy applies better control on personal and professional life events through making sound decisions and therefore achieves optimum well-being. Self-efficacy is also known as one of the key motivational tools for self-development and is associated with a wide range of work outcomes such as job performance and career development (Eden, 2003; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Proceeding from the literature background on the positive effects of self-efficacy on well-being, and based on a critical examination of available literature available, we hypothesize that:

H₁: Self-efficacy will be positively related to workplace well-being

Resilience and Workplace Well-Being

Resilience refers to an individual’s capacity to respond to adversity (Rutter, 1999) and builds up strengths to face changes and to become a better person (Werner, 1995). Bonanno (2004) explains that resilience is considered not just an act of coping with adversities, but also handling them positively to find better meaning in life. Reivich and Shatte (2003) conceptualized resilience as finding new possibilities during adversity. They have prescribed three skills mechanisms to address adversity: assessing risks, understanding one’s capability to undertake risks and getting enriched through dealing with adverse events. Resilience helps in adaptation to fluctuations at work through the flexibility of thought and action (Lee et al., 2013), it also helps individuals to cope with reality and finding meaning during hardship. It supports in bouncing back from setbacks, adversity, and workplace disruptions (DiCorcia & Tronick, 2011; Shin et al., 2012). Thus, it is likely to contribute toward one’s well-being and mental health by reducing the negative effects of daily job hassles. A resilient individual generally shows positive emotion and stability as it helps to cope with the stressful situation better than others and hence making a more balanced way of dealing with it (Ong et al., 2010). Many times adversity found to be having positive outcomes as resilience acts proactively in building an individual’s cognitive and emotional maturity while promoting adaptability skills (Friborg et al., 2003; Wagnild & Young, 1993). A resilient employee shows high in extraversion (Tugade et al., 2004) and emotional stability (Luthar et al., 2000; Riley & Masten, 2005).

Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) describe resilience as an individual’s ability to absorb strain under adversities, such as a leadership crisis, major organizational change, and production pressures or to cope with external demands by stakeholders. Caza and Milton (2011) affirmed the importance of resilience as it makes an individual grow professionally through developing the necessary competence to face the adversity and challenges at work. Reivich and Shatte (2003) characterized resilience as the ability to conquer challenges while undergoing changes experiencing a different perspective of life. Some other studies reveal that resilience is related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Larson & Luthans, 2006). On the other hand, Luthans and colleagues (2005) state that resilience is positively correlated with organizational performance. Hence, we are of the argument that resilience plays a dominant role in creating a happy workforce and the well-being of the employees.

Resilient people are found to have increasing self-reliance (Ryff, 2014), self-awareness, self-disclosure, relationships and empathy (Ryff & Singers, 2006). We have observed these variables being the main constructs of psychological well-being. Several studies have reviewed and underlined the role of resilience in different domains of human endeavor, including workplace activities. It is evident from the scientific literature that resilience is positively associated with employees’ performance (Luthans et al., 2007), work attitude (Larson & Luthans, 2006) and ability to sustain under intense setbacks (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

During our study, we found there has been inconsistency in the intervention of resilience interventions and one of the aims is to promote individual well-being. Similarly, industrial psychologists tried to posit resilience in all manners as a predictor of workplace well-being with little regard for theory (Britt et al., 2016), hence, clear defined constructs and models would help to give more insights on this subject and will create a platform for better understanding of the domain in terms of theory and practice for academicians and industry practitioners.

Earlier studies suggest that resilience can be nurtured by effectively handling the daily challenges of working life rather than dealing with or fighting against adversity (Campbell et al., 2006; Masten & Reed, 2002; Yu & Zhang, 2007). Further, facing challenges on a daily basis, build internal and external resources fight future challenges, rather than merely helping to recover from present ones (Richardson, 2002). Mental health normally measures a broad range of variables such as emotional stability, curiosity, generosity, and physical energy, etc. In this context, a resilient person handles the day-to-day activities better and hence derives greater mental satisfaction (Masten & Wright, 2010). We are of the argument that resilience helps in developing the competence for facing future events, hence exhibits well-being at the workplace. Therefore, we proposed our second hypothesis:

H₂: Resilient executives will perceive a higher level of well-being at the workplace

The Moderating Role of Resilience

Resilience plays an important part in the psychological state of a human being that deals with attachment and understanding the feelings of others (Masten, 2001). Resilience can be improved in various ways especially through enhancement of hardiness, adaptability, and coping strategies (Bonanno, 2004; Infurna & Luthar, 2016). We presume this for resulting in increasing self-efficacy of an individual and well-being at work. Masten and Wright (2010) stated that resilience develops competence, and helps in effective functioning in our social context. Waterman and Collard (1994) argued that a resilient workforce is more dedicated toward continuous learning and keeps abreast of the changes, takes responsibility to derive successes of the organization. The resilient individuals are morally strong and during difficult times, they exhibit their wholehearted commitment toward organizational goals (Bonanno et al., 2011; May et al., 2003). A resilient organization in its true spirit is better positioned than a merely anticipative one (Christianson & Sutcliffe, 2009; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).

Since resilience is considered as a trait and state of psychological well-being over a period of time, it should be positively correlated with good outcomes and negatively associated with bad outcomes (Harms et al., 2018). Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) in their studies mentioned resilient persons who effectively cope with environmental changes continuously renew, improve, and strengthen their capabilities and hence realize the organizational goals. Masten and Reed (2002) suggest that success-oriented individuals are self-motivated and try to develop themselves to effectively deal with uncertainty and adversity at the workplace. Therefore, such individuals have a better sense of self-efficacy that helps them to adapt, grow and deal with future challenges (Luthar et al., 2000). Wilson and colleagues (2005) found that resilient individuals recover quickly from failures and errors and learning from mistakes and use it for their growth. Resilient people are motivated to be seen as competent and well-functioning individuals (Masten, 2007; Masten & Reed, 2002). Considering the above literature, this study argues that, resilience and self-efficacy links for positive with well-being at work. Keeping the above perspective into account, we propose our third hypothesis as follows:

H₃: Resilience will positively moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and well-being at the workplace

Methodology

Sampling and Settings

Data were collected through an on-line and off-line survey from 527 executives working in public and private sector organizations in India. Executives with two or more years of work experience and with an average age of 32.3 years of age were selected as participants of the present study. All the participants have a graduate degree and belong to manufacturing organizations in India. Around 396 participants (75.14 per cent) were males with an average age of 32.3 years and 226 respondents (42.88 per cent) were from public sector manufacturing industries and rests were from reputed private manufacturing industries. Most of the respondents of the study were having more than 5 years of work experience and placed in middle and senior levels in both the public and private manufacturing industry. The survey questionnaire was presented in the English language as the medium of their education was English and they all were fluent in reading, writing and speaking the English language. The participants were told that the data will be only used for research purposes and the utmost confidentiality of their responses will be maintained.

Measures

The survey instrument consisted of four sections. The first section comprised of demographic information of the respondents. The second section comprised of 10 items measuring perceived self-efficacy adapted from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). Each item is responded on a 5-point rating scale format (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). One sample item of the scale includes, “I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities”. The reliability of the scale in the present study found to be 0.81. This scale measures one’s perceived self-efficacy. The scale possesses sound internal consistency reliability with a range of alpha coefficient varying from 0.76 to 0.90. Earlier, many other empirical researches have confirmed its global validity (Rimm & Jerusalem, 1999; Schwarzer & Scholz, 2000).

The third section dealt with the measurement of resilience. A resilience scale (RS) consisting of 14 items (Wagnild & Young, 1993) was used to test resilience for overcoming the difficult phase of one’s life. Each item of the scale is administered on a 5-point rating scale varying from 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). The scale measures five dimensions of resilience such as equanimity, perseverance, self-reliance, meaningfulness, and existential aloneness. The alpha coefficient of the original scale was 0.91 and the reported item-to-item correlation varies from 0.37 to 0.75 at p ≤ .001 (Wagnild & Young, 1993). The concurrent validity of the RS has been reported in a number of earlier studies (Beck & Beck, 1972; Lawton, 1975; Neugarten et al., 1961). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the RS for the present study was found to be 0.88.

The fourth included the measures of workplace well-being developed by Parker and Hyett (2011). This scale is known as the Workplace Well-Being Questionnaire (WWQ) and is designed to measure the well-being of executives who have worked and spent a fair amount of time in their current organization. It measures four dimensions of well-being at work such as work satisfaction, organizational respect for the employee, employer care, and intrusion of work into private life. The scale items of WWQ are answered on a 5-point rating scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely), for the present study. Although the original scale has an acceptable range of reliability (Hyett & Parker, 2015), the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) reported in the present study varies from 0.93 (intrusion of work into private life) to 0.82 (organizational respect for employees).

Results

Preliminary analysis

The initial analysis revealed that the reliability coefficient values of all the scales used in the present study are within the acceptable range (.60 and above; Sekaran, 1992). Thus, they all qualify for further analysis. The demographic variables in the present study such as age, gender, educational qualification, experience, managerial level were controlled to study its possible confounding effects.

For the sake of convenience, self-efficacy was indicated as SE, resilience as RS workplace well-being as WWB. The descriptive statistics and first order correlation among the variables are reported at Table 1. Experience in the present organisation was found to be significantly correlated with SE (r = 0.41, p < .01) and RS (r = 0.38, p < .01) respectively. Managerial level of sample respondents are positively related with both SE (r = 0.16, p < .01) and WWB (r = 0.12, p < .01). Gender was found to be negatively related to WWB (r = -0.06) indicating the relatively lower values of female executive respondents as compared to their male counterparts. Age was found to be positively correlated with all the three variables: SE (r = 0.16, p < .01), RS (r = 0.08, p < .05), WWB (r = 0.26, p < .01).

Table 1.

Mean, Sd, and Correlation Among the Variables of the Study (N = 527)

Variable	Mean	S.D.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Age	32.3	4.67	1
Gen	1.16	-	-.13*	1
Edu Qal.	1.57	0.38	.09*	.14**	1
Exp.	1.01	0.44	-.06	.18**	.09*	1
Man Lv	1.26	0.81	.03	.16**	.21*	.18**	1
SE	3.47	0.56	.16**	.17**	.19*	.41**	.16**	1
RS	3.82	0.79	.08*	.09*	.20**	.38*	.14**	.31**	1
WWB	3.44	0.24	.26**	-.06	.14**	.13**	.12**	.21**	.38**	1

Note: * p < .05, ** p0 < .01.

Source: The authors.

Test of Common method Variance (CMV)

The common method variance was assessed by using the method of Single factor testing (Podsakoff et el., 2003). The goodness of fit indices of single factor revealed a poor fit (χ2/df = 11.24, CFI = 0.63, GFI = 0.77, NNFI = 0.62, PGFI = 0.74, RMSEA = 0.23). Therefore, we could conclude that CMV is not a serious threat for further analysis of the data of the present study. In other words, we could state that our study is not affected by the issue of common method bias.

Construct validity

Since there are various ways to ascertain the validity of a scale, we have used the index of construct validity in the present study as it is considered as very important maker of test validity. Construct validity postulates the distinctiveness of a construct among the matrix of other constructs in a proposed framework. Construct validity denotes the degree of response, their measures between the variables and provides necessary scope for development of theory (Peter, 1981). The construct validity of a scale is determined through average variance extracted (AVE) from the variables considered under a study. If the AVE is greater than the correlation coefficients of all the variables, then it denotes the presence of construct validity (Hair et al., 1998). The reliability of the construct specified as composite reliability (CR) is considered ideal if the value is greater than .60 (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). The findings of AVE and CR of the present study are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of SE, RS, WWB (N=527)

Variables	AVE	CR	SE	RS	WWB
SE	0.72	0.82	(0.79)
RS	0.78	0.71	0.38**	(0.77)
WWB	0.81	0.77	0.43**	0.39**	(0.81)

Source: The authors.

Notes: ** p < .01.

The bold values in parenthesis denotes the square root values of AVE.

The findings revealed that the AVE values are greater than .50 and the square root values of AVE are higher than its correlates. Further, the CR values are higher than the prescribed cut-off. This ensures the confirmation of achievement of acceptable level of reliability and validity of scales used in the present study.

Test for moderation

Hierarchical regression analysis (HRA) was carried out through using SPSS 20.0 to the test the moderation hypothesis of the study. The method was proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) where in the predictor (self-efficacy), moderator (resilience) and interaction effect (self-efficacy X resilience) were concurrently regressed on our proposed criterion (workplace well-being) variable. The significant regression coefficient value of interaction term confirms the moderation effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Table 3 shows the control variables, predictors and interaction term entering sequentially in the regression equation. Workplace well-being as criterion variable, explains 6.2 percent by control variables whereas, the value increases to 24.3 percent in overall model (step 3). The overall model (step 3) accounted for 29 percent of variance, whereas self-efficacy influences an 11 percent variance in workplace well-being. In the second step, self-efficacy showed a positive association with workplace well-being (β = .48, p < .01) whereas, resilience was also been found to have a significant association with workplace well-being (β = .22, p < .01). The said findings have supported both H₁ and H₂. In the third step, self-efficacy was found to be significantly related to workplace well-being (β =.66, p < .01). It is a remarkable finding in the present study that the presence of sustainability practices has significantly added to the variance explicated by workplace well-being. This is evident in the interaction term signifying that there is a positive moderation of resilience in the association between self-efficacy and workplace well-being. Therefore, the proposed H₃ was in line with our findings.

Table 3.

Findings Of Hierarchical Regression Analysis (N=527)

Variables	Standardized regression coefficient (β)
	Workplace well-being
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	β	S.E	β	S.E	B	S.E
Step 1: Control Variables
Agea	0.16**	0.14	0.09*	0.11	0.04	0.10
Genderb	-0.03	0.05	-0.08*	0.06	-0.05	0.05
Educational Qualificationc	0.18*	0.11	0.24**	0.13	0.22**	0.13
Experienced	0.11*	0.07	0.14*	0.04	0.21**	0.11
Managerial levelse	0.22**	0.13	0.19**	0.09	0.14*	0.03
Step 2: Main effects
Self-efficacy			0.48**	0.18	0.66**	0.23
Resilience			0.22**	0.16	0.31**	0.16
Step 3: Interaction effects
Self-efficacy x Resilience					0.47**	0.19
R²	0.06		0.19**		0.24**
∆R²			0.07*		0.03

Source: The authors.

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

For simultaneous assessment of sustainability practices on self-efficacy and workplace well-being the moderation effect was re-examined through structural equation modeling (SEM) by using LISREL 8.52 (see figure 1). We have similar findings where in the interaction term was found to be significantly and positively related with workplace well-being. The fit indices (χ2/df = 2.42; CFI = .95, GFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = 0.06) indicating good model fit (Byrne, 1998). The findings have re-confirmed the moderating role of resilience between self-efficacy and workplace well-being.

The moderation effect of resilience (see figure 2) on the relations between self-efficacy and workplace wellbeing found to be positive and statistically significant. The moderation analysis was carried out as per the suggestion given by Cohen and Cohen (1983).

Discussion

The present study was intended to examine the association of self-efficacy and workplace well-being and the moderating role of resilience between them. The results have revealed that self-efficacy (independent variable) and the moderating variable (resilience) were positively related to workplace well-being (dependent variable). Further, the interaction effect of resilience was found to be positively related to the criterion variable, i.e., workplace well-being. The said findings suggested that executives with high self-efficacy and strong resilience perceive better workplace well-being. Self-efficacy breeds the tendency to become resilient while facing adverse circumstances (Rutter, 1987). By actuating the motivation and behavioral mechanism, self-efficacy promotes resilience (Werner, 1982) and therefore can address to perceive better workplace well-being. The study supports earlier empirical work suggesting that autonomy is a vital element for promoting self-efficacy among employees (Sousa et al., 2012).

The present study has revealed that resilience acts as a buffer through cultivating executives’ candidness to address workplace changes. Resilience is derived from cognitive adaptation theory (Taylor, 1983) and hence it recommends that self-efficacious employees with the intent of adaptability may try to foresee well-being amidst hectic life events (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Our study is in line with Luthar and colleagues (2000) recommendations for defining resilience as a kind of inner competence in adverse situations. The study has espoused workplace well-being as the subjective psychological well-being of employees (Hills & Argyle, 2002). The findings confirmed the assertion that perceiving workplace well-being is imperative for a nurturing attitude and outlook toward the organization (Grant et al., 2007).

Managerial Implications

The result of our present study finds that self-efficacy and resilience are pivotal in developing the psychological well-being of employees in the workplace. Our study suggests organizations to focus on devising appropriate strategies to develop attitudinal skills like self-efficacy, adaptability skills, etc. among its employees. The study has proved that self-efficacy is a meaningful concept in promoting employee involvement and therefore HRD and training department should develop activity specific learning programs in their training curriculum for increasing self-efficacy. Counseling can be an important tool to help employees for coping organizational stress as it can improve mental health and well-being at the workplace.

Managers develop organizational resilience by making the organization more adaptable, and capable of responding to adverse conditions, challenging environments by proper understanding structural resources of their people (Sutcliffe, 2011). Understanding the developmental process and growth dimension of resilience and self-efficacy helps managers to focus on developing employees’ interpersonal skills and coping abilities. Periodic Appreciate enquiry on understanding the resilience would help managers to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of each individual employee at the workplace. In this context, the organization may think of training its leaders on resilience as it will help them to develop greater concern for their subordinates and this in return will build a better interpersonal relationship at the workplace. This kind of proactive HR practice is presumed in improving the coping ability while promoting mental health and well-being among employees.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Scope

The objective of this study was to explore the moderating role of resilience between perceived self-efficacy and psychological well-being. Self-efficacy and resilience are malleable in nature and get enriched through observation and learning. Training interventions and dynamic organizational HR policies and practices are expected to improve the perception of workplace well-being among employees. In spite of such propositions, the study carries a set of limitations. First, longitudinal and experimental studies are required to provide more definitive conclusions about the causal effects of resilience on the relationships between self-efficacy and well-being. Second, the data are collected through a random sampling method, hence due care need to be taken while generalizing the result in a larger population. Third, a future study may be carried out in other regions with a large sample size to have an appropriate and acceptable comparison by addressing the effectiveness of resilience on other behavior constructs. The role of emotional intelligence as a potential moderator can be examined on proposed relationships. Finally, the study is exclusively based on executives of Indian manufacturing organizations, hence limits the generalization of the findings.

The above study suggested the following: self-efficacy and well-being are positively related to each other and resilience moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and well-being. The study provides some of the fresh insights on workplace well-being through empirically investigating the boundary conditions. The present work contributed to the external validity of the self-efficacy and resilience relationship by examining them with Indian manufacturing executives. The moderating effect of resilience between self-efficacy and workplace well-being stands is one of the unique empirical works in positive organizational behavior studies. Finally, this study provides a new theoretical framework for understanding the relationship among the above variables of the present study and stands as a guiding path for managers to devise suitable strategies toward creating holistic well-being at the workplace.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abdalla

I. A.

(1995). Sex, sex-role self-concepts and career decision-making self-efficacy among Arab students. Social Behavior and Personality , 23, 389–402.

Bandura

(1989). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society , 2, 411–424.

Bandura

(1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co.

Baron

Kenny

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(6), 1173–1182.

Beck

A. T.

Beck

R. W.

(1972). Screening depressed patients in family practice: A rapid technique. Postgraduate Medicine , 52, 81–85.

Bonanno

G. A.

(2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist , 59, 20–28.

Bonanno

G. A.

Westphal

Mancini

A. D.

(2011). Resilience to loss and potential trauma. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 7, 511–535.

Bornstein

M. H.

Davidson

Keyes

C. L. M.

Moore

(2003). Well-being: Positive development across the life course. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10.

Britt

T. W.

Shen

Sinclair

R. R.

Grossman

M. R.

Klieger

D. M.

(2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 9, 378–404.

11.

Byrne

B. M.

(1998). Structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.

12.

Campbell

Cohan

S. L.

Stein

M. B.

(2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 44, 585–599.

13.

Caza

B. B.

Milton

L. P.

(2011). Resilience at work: Building capability in the face of adversity. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 895–908). Oxford University Press.

14.

Christianson

Sutcliffe

K. M.

(2009). Sensemaking, high reliability organizing, and resilience. In P., Croskerry, K., Crosby, S. Schenkel, & R. L. Wears (Eds.), Patient safety in emergency medicine (pp. 27–33). Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

15.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.

16.

Cranford

J. A.

(2004). Stress-buffering or stress-exacerbation? Social support and social undermining as moderators of the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms among married people. Personal Relationships , 11(1), 23–40.

17.

Diamantopoulos

Siguaw

J. A.

(2000). Introducing LISREL. Sage.

18.

DiCorcia

J. A.

Tronick

E. D.

(2011). Quotidian resilience: Exploring mechanisms that drive resilience from a perspective of everyday stress and coping. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1593–1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.04.008

19.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin , 95, 542–575.

20.

Diener

(1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science , 7(3), 181–184.

21.

Diener

Rober-Biswas

(2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Blackwell.

22.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment , 49(1), 71–75.

23.

Djourova

N. P.

Rodriguez

Tordera

Gebeyehu

(2019). Self-efficacy and resilience: Mediating mechanisms in the relationship between the transformational leadership dimensions and well-being. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies . https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819849002

24.

Eden

(2003). Self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 91–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

Ereaut

Whiting

(2008). What do we mean by well-being? And why might it matter? Linguistic Landscapes.

26.

Friborg

Hjemdal

Rosenvinge

J. H.

Martinussen

(2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 12, 65–76.

27.

Godin

Kittel

Coppieters

Siegrist

(2005). A prospective study of cumulative job stress in relation to mental health. BMC Public Health, 5, 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-67

28.

Grant

A. M.

Christianson

M. K.

Price

R. H.

(2007). Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. The Academy of Management Perspectives , 21(3), 51–63.

29.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

30.

Harms

P. D.

Brady

Wood

Silard

(2018). Resilience and well-being. In E., Diener, S., Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 1–12). DEF Publishers.

31.

Harter

J. K.

Schmidt

F. L.

Keyes

C. L.

(2002). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–224). American Psychological Association.

32.

Headey

Wearing

(1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Longman Cheshire.

33.

Hills

Argyle

(2002). The Oxford happiness questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences , 33(7), 1073–1082.

34.

Hyett

M. P.

Parker

G. B.

(2015). Further examination of the properties of the Workplace Well-Being Questionnaire (WWQ). Social Indicator Research , 124, 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0805-5

35.

Infurna

F. J.

Luthar

S. S.

(2016). Resilience to major life stressors is not as common as thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 11, 175–194.

36.

Jahoda

(1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. Basic Books.

37.

Kasikci

M. K.

Alberto

(2007). Family support, perceived self-efficacy and self-care behavior of Turkish patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Clinical Nursing , 16, 1468–1478.

38.

Larson

Luthans

(2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 13, 44–61.

39.

Lawton

M. P.

(1975). The Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale: A revision. Journal of Gerontology , 39, 85–89.

40.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Free Association.

41.

Lee

J. H.

Nam

S. K.

Kim

Lee

M. Y.

Lee

S. M.

(2013). Resilience: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556–6676.2013.00095.x

42.

Lipke

(2009). Self-efficacy moderates the mediation on intentions into behaviour via plans. American Journal of Health Behavior , 33(5), 521–529.

43.

Liu

Siu

O. L.

Shi

(2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology , 59, 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x

44.

Loeb

S. J.

Steffensmeier

Kassab

(2011). Predictors of self-efficacy and self-rated health for older male inmates. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 67(4), 811–820.

45.

Lowe

Bennett

(2003). Exploring coping reactions to work stress: application of an appraisal theory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 67(6), 393–400.

46.

Luthans

Avolio

Walumbwa

(2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with the performance. Management and Organization Review , 1, 247–269.

47.

Luthans

Youssef

C. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(2007). Psychological capital. Oxford University Press.

48.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

Becker

(2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development , 71(3), 543–562.

49.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist , 56(3), 227–238.

50.

Masten

A. S.

(2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rise. Development and Psychopathology , 19, 921–930.

51.

Masten

A. S.

Reed

M. G. J.

(2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). Oxford University Press.

52.

Masten

A. S.

Wright

(2010). Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery. In J. W., Reich, A. J., Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 213–237). Guilford Press.

53.

May

D. R.

Chan

A. Y. L.

Hodges

T. D.

Avolio

B. J.

(2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics , 32, 247–260.

54.

Natovová

Chýlová

(2014). Is there a relationship between self-efficacy, well-being and behavioral markers in managing stress at university students? Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science , 7(1), 14–18.

55.

Neugarten

Havighurst

Tobin

(1961). The measure of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology , 16, 134–143.

56.

Ong

A. D.

Fuller- Rowell

T. E.

Bonanno

G. A.

(2010). Prospective predictors of positive emotions following spousal loss. Psychology and Aging , 25(3), 653–660.

57.

Page

K. M.

Vella-Brodrick

D. A.

(2009). The what, why and how of employee well-being: A new model. Social Indicators Research , 90, 441–458.

58.

Pajares

Schunk

D. H.

(2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp. 239–266). Ablex.

59.

Panatik

S. A.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Anderson

M. H.

(2011). Job demands and employee work-related psychological responses among Malaysian technical workers: The moderating effects of self-efficacy. Work and Stress , 25(4), 355–371.

60.

Parker

(1998). Enhancing role-breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83, 835–852.

61.

Parker

G. B.

Hyett

M. P.

(2011). Measurement of well-being in the workplace: the development of the work well-being questionnaire. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 199, 394–397.

62.

Peter

J. P.

(1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research , 18(2), 133–145.

63.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Lee

J. Y.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5), 879–903.

64.

Reivich

Shatte

(2003). The resilience factor: 7 essential skills for overcoming life’s inevitable obstacles. Broadway.

65.

Richardson

G. E.

(2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 58(3), 307–321.

66.

Richardson

J. C.

Chew- Graham

C. A.

(2016). Resilience and well-being. Springer.

67.

Riley

J. R.

Masten

A. S.

(2005). Resilience in context. In R., Dev, B. L., Peters, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Resilience in children, families, and communities: Linking context to practice and policy (pp. 13–25). Kluwer Academic Publishers/Plenum Press.

68.

Rimm

Jerusalem

(1999). Adaptation and validation of an Estonian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping , 12, 329–345.

69.

Rutter

(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 57(3), 316–331.

70.

Rutter

(1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy , 21, 119–144.

71.

Ryff

C. D.

(2014). Self-realization and meaning making in the face of adversity: A eudaimonic approach to human resilience. Journal of Psychology in Africa , 24(1), 1–12.

72.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

B. H.

(2006). Best news yet on the six factor model of well-being. Social Science Research , 35, 1103–1119.

73.

Sanna

L. J.

(1977). Self-efficacy and counterfactual thinking: up to a week with or without a paddle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23, 654–667.

74.

Sastre

Ferriere

(2000). Family decline and the subjective well-being of adolescents. Social Indicators Research , 49, 69–82.

75.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J., Weinman, S., Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.

76.

Schwarzer

Scholz

(2000). Cross-cultural assessment of coping resources: The General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale [Paper presentation]. First Asian Congress of Health Psychology: Health Psychology and Culture, Tokyo, Japan.

77.

Sears

Shi

Coberley

Pope

(2013). Overall well-being as a predictor of health care, productivity, and retention outcomes in a large employer. Population Health Management , 16, 397–405.

78.

Sekaran

(1992). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. John Wiley & Sons.

79.

Shek

(1997). The relation of the family functioning to adolescent psychological wellbeing, school adjustment, and problem behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 158, 467–479.

80.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercandante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

Rogers

R. W.

(1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports , 51, 663–671.

81.

Shin

Taylor

M. S.

Seo

M. G.

(2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal , 55, 727–748. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325

82.

Sousa

C. M. P.

, Coelho

Gullamon-Saorin

(2012). Personal values, autonomy, and self-efficacy: Evidence from frontline service employees. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 20(2), 159–170.

83.

Stajkovic

A. D.

Luthans

(1988). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 124(2), 240–261.

84.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

(2011). Organizational resilience [Paper presentation]. Resilience 2011, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

85.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Vogus

T. J.

(2003). Organizing for Resilience. In K., Cameron, J. E., Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. Berrett-Koehler.

86.

Tanaka

(1999). Emotional stress and characteristics of brain noradrenaline release in the rat. Industrial Health , 37(2), 143–156.

87.

Taylor

S. E.

(1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist , 38(11), 1161–1173.

88.

Tong

Song

(2004). A study on general self-efficacy and subjective well-being of low SES college students in a Chinese university. College Student Journal , 38(4), 637–647.

89.

Tugade

M. M.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Barrett

L. F.

(2004). Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity. Journal of Personality , 72, 1161–1190.

90.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

R. M.

(2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration , 23, 263–280.

91.

VanWel

Linssen

Abma

(2000). The parental bond and the well-being adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescents , 29, 307–318.

92.

Wagnild

G. M.

Young

H. M.

(1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement , 1(2), 165–178.

93.

Wanberg

C. R.

Banas

J. T.

(2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85(1), 132–142.

94.

Waterman

Collard

(1994). Toward a career resilient workforce. Harvard Business Review , 72(4), 87–95.

95.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

(2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

96.

Werner

E. E.

(1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. McGraw-Hill.

97.

Werner

E. E.

(1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 4, 81–85.

98.

Wilson

K. A.

Burke

C. S.

Priest

H. A.

Salas

(2005). Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams. Quality and Safety in Health Care , 14(4), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.010090

99.

Zhang

(2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Social Behavior and Personality , 35(1), 19–30.